ReadWrite - lawsuitshttp://readwrite.com/tag/lawsuits
enCopyright 2015 Wearable World Inc.http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rssTue, 03 Mar 2015 14:37:03 -0800The Supreme Court Kills Abstract Software Patents: Who Wins And Who Loses<!-- tml-version="2" --><p>According to the U.S. Supreme Court, you cannot legally patent laws of nature, natural phenomena or abstract ideas. Especially if those abstract ideas are a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/20/technology/supreme-court-rules-against-alice-corp-in-patent-case.html">generic implementation of doing something “on a computer.”</a></p><p>In a unanimous decision today, the Supreme Court invalidated a class of software patents that cover what it considers "abstract concepts." The case, <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf"><em>Alice Corporation PTY. LTD. v. CLS Bank International et al.</em></a>, concerned the patenting of a generic concept—a means of enforcing the settlement of debts in a multi-party financial transaction—to be performed on a computer by Alice Corporation. CLS Bank International argued that the patent was invalid because the underlying concept has long been part of finance and economics, and that the only thing new was that Alice performed its settlements using a computer.</p><p>Essentially, the Supreme Court ruled that no such abstract concept can be turned into a patentable invention simply because someone programs it into a computer. That's going to have some important consequences for many existing patents, although reform advocates had hoped the high court might use the case to invalidate all software patents.</p><h2>What Types Of Software The Case Affects</h2><p>The ruling is fairly narrow in terms of its application but still a giant step in the long-standing campaign for patent reform. But if you think the ruling will stop the patent trolls in their tracks, you have another think coming.&nbsp;</p><p>It might be easier to think of it in terms of what the Supreme Court didn't do. It didn't invalidate another common class of patents that cover "business methods"—i.e., supposed "inventions" that support new ways of doing business. Three justices believe that business method patents should be invalidated and filed opinions to that effect in the <em>Alice</em>&nbsp;case. In the 2010 case <em><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski_v._Kappos">Bilski v. Kappos</a>,</em>&nbsp;the court ruled 5-4 to leave business method patents untouched.</p><p>The <em>Alice</em> decision&nbsp;leaves the open the possibility that more patents covering more complex software that can't easily be boiled down to simple “abstract” ideas will remain valid.</p><h2>Who Will Be Affected By The&nbsp;<em>Alice </em>Case?</h2><p>There's a clear set of winners from this decision, at least until the high court issues future rulings on software patents:</p><p><strong>Large Technology Companies:</strong>&nbsp;Like, say, IBM and Microsoft. Both companies filed briefs supporting the Alice patents because of their own investment in thousands of software patents. Many of those remain untouched by today's ruling.</p><p><strong>Software Patent Defendants:</strong> One of the tangential benefits of today’s ruling is that it forces software patents to meet patent-eligibility restrictions described in Section 101 (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_35_of_the_United_States_Code#Section_101">35 U. S. C. §101</a>) of U.S. patent law. That doesn't fundamentally change much for patents in general, but it does allow defendants to rely on established legal defenses that can sometimes result in quicker dismissal of patent lawsuits.</p><p><strong>Individual Developers:</strong>&nbsp;Individual software developers often say that they are against software patents. And that's easy for most of them to say, as few indie devs have ever filed a patent. Still, the ruling should provide smaller companies and independent developers protection from patent trolls using abstract patents designed to force them to settle out of court or accept licensing terms.</p><h2>Questions Remaining After <em>Alice</em></h2><p>Given that the Supreme Court keeps taking half-measures in patent reform, this will likely not be last time it rules on patent-reform issues.&nbsp;</p><p>The court’s opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, declined to define what an abstract patent actually entails. “We need not labor to delimit the precise contours of the 'abstract ideas' category in this case,” the opinion stated. So the definition of "abstract" goes back to the lower courts.&nbsp;</p><p>Overall volume of patent suits may decline, particularly if patent assertion entities—i.e., trolls—find it harder to clear the “abstract” bar. But that doesn’t mean that these patent troll entities won’t still try to scare smaller companies into settling for smaller claims.&nbsp;</p><p><em>Lead image by <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/donkeyhotey/6871940454/in/photolist-btfutY-cnX48f-eA35G6-4bD74c-btygP7-5DE7pd-4TN9ZF-6Jdk8n-bt9kzr-bt9kse-3P99ph-xj88i-Be9e6-nJDF3n-3P8QLA-8NR5AN-8NR5so-xj83f-6GErD7-3P8QLd-8NMYf2-8Cp6in-9sQTGY-3P99oN-xj7XB-dm46w7-6axN99-5U8K39-2ahPDv-cnjQ6L-azLaFC-bD8x1x-m9aDMT-gx8FG8-3P99o1-eVL2WG-azHzn6-azLbYw-azL9j9-azHxB8-azLffs-azLeaU-azLePm-azLeyL-azHAgp-azLeCj-azHvPX-azLagW-azLfVA-azHu6R">Flickr user DonkeyHotey</a>, CC 2.0</em></p>The U.S. Supreme Court struck a blow at software patents, but many feel the court did not go far enough.http://readwrite.com/2014/06/19/software-patents-supreme-court-scotus-alice-cls-bank
http://readwrite.com/2014/06/19/software-patents-supreme-court-scotus-alice-cls-bankWebThu, 19 Jun 2014 14:46:00 -0700Dan RowinskiApple And Google Agree To Stop Suing Each Other Over Smartphone Patents<!-- tml-version="2" --><p></p><div tml-image="ci01b27ff660008266" tml-render-position="right" tml-render-size="medium"><figure><img src="http://a3.files.readwrite.com/image/upload/c_fill,cs_srgb,dpr_1.0,q_80,w_620/MTIyMzAwODM0Njk5NTc1OTEw.jpg" /></figure></div><p>The tangle of patent litigation between two of the world’s top tech companies appears to have just straightened out: Apple and Google's Motorola Mobility have agreed to stop suing each other over smartphone technology and “work together in some areas of patent reform,” <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/16/us-apple-google-settlement-idUSBREA4F0S020140516">Reuters reported</a> Friday.</p><p>It’s not clear what that means precisely, other than putting a kibosh on all existing lawsuits between the iPhone maker and Android company. That would effectively end roughly 20 cases in the United States and Germany, said a <a href="http://gigaom.com/2014/05/16/apple-and-google-declare-patent-truce-will-dismiss-all-current-lawsuits/">Gigaom source</a> “familiar with the litigation.” Patent lawsuits between Apple and Samsung don’t appear to be affected or influenced by the agreement.</p><p><em>Image by <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/60588258@N00/3293465641/in/photolist-622SAn-8Cp6in-63UDyk-63UDAr-58GtJC-dvMZm5-63UDLR-68qMei-e6yiVM-7UToH-9U4rk9-9U4rkf-AuHb5-aqCiHc-9qGVTS-bH9CKc-ncMHdf-exBsHh-4VLPuN-556CT2-nsxyKX-eSjg29-6GDnNf-6GzjL6-6GDmu9-a61Zef-8N975a-exyfCP-miPrvg-fZe4UE-9id92W-fZdDQ5-aqAPHX-58CkYK-6GDj5h-6GDkEd-58CkfX-exygtn-exBsWY-exyg4g-exyfRP-exyfvP-exyfbg-exBryu-exyeFt-exBqK3-exydTR-miNAZF-mBm7dV-mBnc9L">Flickr user Brian Turner</a></em></p>The tech giants (finally) bury the hatchet and join forces on patent reform.http://readwrite.com/2014/05/16/apple-and-google-agree-to-stop-suing-each-other-over-smartphones
http://readwrite.com/2014/05/16/apple-and-google-agree-to-stop-suing-each-other-over-smartphonesMobileFri, 16 May 2014 18:39:00 -0700ReadWrite EditorsMore Than Java: What's Really At Stake In Google And Oracle's Copyright Case<!-- tml-version="2" --><p></p><div tml-image="ci01b2811dd0018266" tml-render-position="right" tml-render-size="medium"><figure><img src="http://a2.files.readwrite.com/image/upload/c_fill,cs_srgb,dpr_1.0,q_80,w_620/MTIyMzAyMTA0MTMwODQ3MzM0.jpg" /></figure></div><p><em><a href="http://readwrite.com/series/the-platform#awesm=~oE4nAYESEhpn1k">The Platform</a> is a regular column by mobile editor Dan Rowinski. Ubiquitous computing, ambient intelligence and pervasive networks are changing the way humans interact with everything.&nbsp;</em></p><p>Any artist that's ever dealt with copyright will tell you one basic fact: Copyright is the most confusing, convoluted and capricious aspect of intellectual property rights ever created. You thought patents were bad? Delve into the world of copyright and just wait for your head to explode.</p><p>This is what makes the <a href="http://readwrite.com/2014/05/09/google-oracle-java-copyright-appeals-court#awesm=~oE4h8OIbPiGpO1">imbroglio between Oracle and Google</a> over the use of copyright in Java such a hard case to understand. It could, however, set a dangerous legal precedent for software development for years to come.&nbsp;</p><h2>The Musician: Licensing Vs. Fair Use</h2><p>Let’s say I am a musician. I want to cover a song from one of my favorite artists. Technically, I don’t need to get the license of the song if I am just playing it at the local bar. But the venue I am playing at may need to pay a license fee to a rights holder organization to allow for the use of cover songs or DJs in its establishment.</p><p>Now, if I am going to release that cover song on my next album (which will be sold for profit), I need to get the rights from the rights holder, which may be a music studio or an individual artist. If I want to use that cover song in a movie, I need to get a different kind of license. One way or another, if I am making money with the cover song, I am going to have to pay somebody else for that privilege.</p><p>But what if I'm just using a part of a song—albeit word for word, note for note—in part of my song? Or what if I change the song just enough so that it's not technically a cover but my own original representation inspired by the original performance? That could be considered “fair use,” a legal doctrine where short portion of original copyrighted works can be used verbatim in a fair and reasonable way that does not impair the value of the materials or take profit away from copyright owner.</p><blockquote tml-render-position="right" tml-render-size="medium"></blockquote><p><strong>Quick Thought: The Fast Lane &amp; Reclassification</strong></p><p>If you or your company wants faster Internet service, you may have to pay to be in the "fast lane" in the near future. That's what the broadband and cellular carriers want to happen and would violate the concept of Net Neutrality that is the biggest issue facing Internet technology and innovation today.</p><p><a href="http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702303627504579556200630931292-lMyQjAxMTA0MDEwMTExNDEyWj">According to The Wall Street Journal,</a> Federal Communication Commission chairman Tom Wheeler wants to prohibit this concept of two Internets through regulation and policy currently being debated. The Commission is debating whether or not a "paid prioritization" model should be adopted in its latest proposal over Net Neutrality and nobody outside the broadband providers likes the idea, especially content-heavy companies like Netflix and Google.</p><p>If Wheeler ever really wants to make substantial and lasting policy, the FCC will eventually have to reclassify broadband as a public utility and take control over all regulation of Internet access. Reclassification would be Wheeler's nuclear measure and the FCC could face lawsuits for years from the broadband companies to get it to stick. At some point, policy debate and compromise is just not a viable option and reclassification may be the only way to go.</p><p>The fair use vs. licensing rights battle has played out thousands of times between artists, especially when it comes to using the same work for different media like television, film, live performances, digital and physical storage. What is significant in the Oracle vs. Google copyright lawsuit is that this artistic nature of copyright is now being applied to computer code.</p><p>What makes the Oracle and Google fight so important is not (really) the specifics of what Google may or may not have copied in terms of Java APIs for use in Android. The danger is in applying copyright to a computer language and the far-reaching impact that could have on the software industry.</p><h2>Pandora’s Programmer</h2><p>If you are unfamiliar with the specifics of the Oracle and Google case, the synopsis is pretty straightforward: Google wanted to use Java to build Android. Google did not believe it needed a license from Oracle to use Android if it changed the specifics of how the Java APIs were used. Google then went on to basically write its own version of Java APIs for Android. In doing so, Google uses a similar style and structure as the original Java, but in some cases used similar categories, headers and objects within the code. (This is the "structure, sequence and organization" that the court documents mention over and over again.)</p><p>In the millions of lines of code that Google wrote for Android, about eight lines were direct copies from Oracle’s Java, while the look of the APIs was very similar but written differently.</p><p>As one <a href="http://readwrite.com/2014/05/09/google-oracle-java-copyright-appeals-court#comment-1378548250">ReadWrite commenter put it last week</a>, “Google basically [thought] that Java sucked for its purposes so they copied the ‘table of contents’ and then rewrote the book themselves to be 'better.'”</p><p></p><div tml-image="ci01b2794620016d19" tml-render-position="left" tml-render-size="medium"><figure><img src="http://a2.files.readwrite.com/image/upload/c_fill,cs_srgb,dpr_1.0,q_80,w_620/MTIyMjkzNDgwOTEwMjU4Nzkw.jpg" /></figure></div><p>If we compare what Google did with Java for Android and the case of the musician above, where does the line fall between the need to license the original work and the fair use to create an original representation?</p><p>The original jury in the case could not answer that question. Judge William Alsup ruled in place of the jury that the API elements Google copied—i.e., their names and organization—<a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11993811402986646931&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr">weren't subject to copyright</a>, a win for Google. Alsup's ruling mooted the fair-use question.</p><p>But a federal appeals court just overturned Alsup’s ruling, saying APIs are copyrightable—that's a win for Oracle. The appellate panel returned the case to the lower court for a ruling on Google's fair-use claim.</p><p>Part of Oracle’s argument is that it's protecting Java from fragmentation and interoperability issues for developers. This argument rings a little hollow when considering how Java has been forked several times over by companies and individual developers for their own purposes, and that there are already dozens of competing programming languages that share many of the same properties and principles with Java to achieve similar goals. Essentially, the world of computer programming languages has been fragmented for decades.</p><p>What Oracle is doing is attempting to create a legal precedent to protect its own corporate interests and sell more licenses and the support that goes with them. Third-party briefs filed in the case—from the likes of Microsoft and IBM—support Oracle’s stance because it preserves the business models of those particular companies as well.&nbsp;</p><p>But developers are not exactly enthused with the ruling. By protecting its own selfish interests, Oracle is opening a Pandora’s box that could have much wider impact than just its fight with Google.</p><p>"While the goal of avoiding fragmentation of Java that has been Oracle's stated intent in pursuing this has some merit, we're not comfortable with the idea that copyrighting APIs is the way to accomplish this,” said Apigee’s VP of product strategy Ed Anuff. “It's likely going to have the opposite effect, causing the proliferation of convoluted APIs for no other reason than to avoid the potential of legal exposure. &nbsp;That's a no win proposition for anyone involved."</p><p>The fear within the software industry is that copyright will become the new favorite weapon of corporate lawyers everywhere. If patent troll lawsuits become an insufficient means to hurting competitors in court, companies may just turn to the copyright route to damage their competitors, opening up the potential for an explosion of lawsuits and injunctions.&nbsp;</p><h2>What Happens To Android?</h2><p>What Android developers want to know is, “How does this affect me?”</p><p>In the short term, it doesn’t.&nbsp;</p><p>The case has been remanded back to the original district court for now, but Google is likely to take it all the way to the United States Supreme Court. So while the case is still being adjudicated, Android is going to continue with business as usual. If the Supreme Court hears the case, it will be months at the very least, if not a year or more, before a decision comes that would affect Google, Android and developers.</p><blockquote tml-render-position="right" tml-render-size="medium"><p><strong>Quote Of The Day:</strong> "I don't trust them not to detain me, interrogate me and even arrest me. Their behaviour has been so extreme and offensive, and the political and media class was so supportive of it, that I feel uncomfortable with the entire atmosphere." ~ Journalist Glenn Greewald <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/12/glenn-greenwald-uk-arrest-me-edward-snowden-nsa">on his reluctance to enter the United Kingdom</a> after publishing Edward Snowden's leaked documents on the NSA in 2013.</p></blockquote><p>If Google loses and Android becomes prohibitively expensive (either because Google would have to license Java from Oracle or pay a large lump sum in damages), it would change the free and open source nature of the Android Open Source Project (AOSP). What Google would do then is anybody’s guess. Android is so big with so many installed phones that the general thought is that Google would somehow make it work.</p><p>In the meantime, Google could fundamentally change Android development, going with its own non-Java languages that have been in development such as Go and Dart. If Google goes down this road, it will make developers learn new languages that would further fragment the software development ecosystem and affect hundreds of thousands of developers and a million apps. Google would love to make Go the premier language to replace the likes of Java and C++, but it will face opposition on that front from a variety of sectors.</p><p>Google already employs a non-Java compiler in open source Dalvik for Android that compiles Java into bytecode (machine code) to run on a device. Dalvik replaces the need for a Java Virtual Machine complier in Android and Oracle is none too happy about that. Dalvik will soon be <a href="http://readwrite.com/2013/11/07/google-says-it-could-replace-dalvik-runtime-in-next-version-of-android#awesm=~oE4hrM7UO46hQd">replaced with its next version built by Google, Android Runtime</a>. Just like the compiler, Google could pragmatically move pieces of Android off of Java and wipe its hands of Oracle all together. That is not an easy, or fast, process.</p><p>Oracle’s best interest is to create a continuing revenue stream from Google over Android, so killing off Android itself is not (or should not) be its primary goal. The threat to Android is more existential than tangible at this point with the larger issue here the use of copyright in software development.</p><h2>More on Oracle, Google &amp; Copyright</h2><ul><li>Vox employs its powers of explanation on the court case, with Timothy B. Lee offering the headline, "<a href="http://www.vox.com/2014/5/9/5699960/this-court-decision-is-a-disaster-for-the-software-industry">The court that created the patent troll mess is screwing up copyright too</a>."</li><li>Corynne McSherry of the Electronic Frontier Foundation weighs in on the appeal. McSherry says, "<a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/dangerous-ruling-oracle-v-google-federal-circuit-reverses-sensible-lower-court">the implications of this decision are significant, and dangerous.</a>"</li><li>Wired reporter Robert McMillan writes that Oracle's win <a href="http://www.wired.com/2014/05/oracle-copyright/">is bad for everybody.</a></li><li>When we contacted Google for comment on the appeal, Google's global communications and public affairs manager for patents Matt Kallman suggested we read <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/30/developers-should-care-about-oracles-upcoming-appeal-of-the-google-lawsuit/">this article from two guest authors at TechCrunch</a> published last year.</li><li>Russell Brandom from The Verge says the appeal <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/9/5699958/federal-court-overturns-google-v-oracle">sets a dangerous precedent.</a></li></ul><p><em><strong>Correction, 3pm PT:</strong> An earlier version of this story misstated Judge Alsup's original ruling in the Oracle-Google case. The judge found that the API elements copied by Google were not covered by copyright.</em></p><p><em><strong>Correction, 5:02pm PT:</strong> An earlier version of this story included an erroneous reference to the programming language Rust; it was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_(programming_language)">developed at Mozilla</a>, not Google.</em></p>Oracle is suing Google to protect its business, but the copyright suit over Java has bigger consequences on the line.http://readwrite.com/2014/05/12/java-copyright-case-google-oracle
http://readwrite.com/2014/05/12/java-copyright-case-google-oracleMobileMon, 12 May 2014 13:04:00 -0700Dan RowinskiMicrosoft, Google Press Lawsuit On Government Spying Data<!-- tml-version="2" --><div tml-image="ci01b282ae10026d19" tml-render-position="center" tml-render-size="large"><figure><img src="http://a1.files.readwrite.com/image/upload/c_fill,cs_srgb,dpr_1.0,q_80,w_620/MTIyMzAzODIyMTE3NzY1NzM0.jpg" /></figure></div><p>After the Guardian and other publications revealed that US spy agencies relied on cooperation from tech giants like Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and Yahoo to gather up Americans' electronic communications, the companies protested that government secrecy rules prevented them from disclosing details about the data they gave US intelligence agencies.</p><p>Now, two of those companies, Microsoft and Google, are pressing forward with a lawsuit to force the government to let them disclose more data, <a href="http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2013/08/30/standing-together-for-greater-transparency.aspx">Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith said in a company blog post</a>.</p><p>Negotiations with the Department of Justice failed, Smith wrote, because the companies wanted to publish statistics about both requests for the actual contents of emails and other communications, and simpler "metadata" requests, such as the sender or recipient of an email.</p>After negotiations failed, the tech companies are taking their right to disclose more information to court.http://readwrite.com/2013/08/30/microsoft-google-fisa-lawsuit
http://readwrite.com/2013/08/30/microsoft-google-fisa-lawsuitWebFri, 30 Aug 2013 15:05:39 -0700ReadWrite EditorsApple And Amazon Agree To Stop Stupidly Suing Each Other Over "App Store" Name<!-- tml-version="2" --><p></p><div tml-image="ci01b278da10018266" tml-render-position="right" tml-render-size="medium"><figure><img src="http://a1.files.readwrite.com/image/upload/c_fill,cs_srgb,dpr_1.0,q_80,w_620/MTIyMjkzMDE3MDUzNzkwODIy.jpg" /></figure></div><p>Apple and Amazon have settled their differences over the term "app store," putting an end to a dispute that began when Apple sued Amazon in 2011 over the e-commerce king's use of the term for the store that it uses to sell mobile applications for its Kindle Fire tablets.&nbsp;</p><p>Today, U.S. District Court judge&nbsp;Phyllis Hamilton in Oakland, Calif. agreed to dismiss the case.&nbsp;<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/09/us-apple-amazon-appstore-lawsuit-idUSBRE9680TT20130709">According to a report from Reuters</a>, Apple agreed to drop the case in order to avoid a counterclaim from Amazon. Apple had originally claimed trademark violation and false advertising over Amazon's use of the App Store name.&nbsp;</p><p>"We no longer see a need to pursue our case," Apple spokeswoman Kristin Huguet told Reuters. "With more than 900,000 apps and 50 billion downloads, customers know where they can purchase their favorite apps."</p><p>Amazon's application store is technically called the "Amazon Appstore For Android." It sells and markets apps specifically for its Kindle Fire tablets, which compete with Apple's iPad. Apple's version is just the "App Store" on iPhones and iPads; it also lives as a feature of Apple's desktop iTunes software.&nbsp;</p><p>Amazon had claimed that the "app store" term had become generic and was thus safe to use.&nbsp;</p><p>Apple's App Store turns five years old on Wednesday, July 10. The Amazon Appstore for Android was launched on March 22, 2011.&nbsp;</p>Citing its "900,000 apps and 50 billion downloads," Apple basically tells Amazon to call its app store whatever it likes. http://readwrite.com/2013/07/09/apple-amazon-agree-to-settle-lawsuit-over-use-of-the-term-app-store
http://readwrite.com/2013/07/09/apple-amazon-agree-to-settle-lawsuit-over-use-of-the-term-app-storeMobileTue, 09 Jul 2013 12:35:01 -0700Dan RowinskiYahoo Keeps Buying Startups That Don't Make Their Own Apps<!-- tml-version="2" --><div tml-image="ci01b282b0c0016d19" tml-render-position="center" tml-render-size="large"><figure><img src="http://a1.files.readwrite.com/image/upload/c_fill,cs_srgb,w_620/MTIyMzAzODMzOTI5MTg3OTQy.png" /></figure></div><p>Yahoo is deploying its billions of dollars in cash and its newly buoyant stock to purchase a bevy of startups.</p><p>It's worth asking whether its shareholders are getting their money's worth.</p><p>Qwiki, a mobile-app startup based in New York whose <a href="http://readwrite.com/2013/07/02/yahoo-acquires-qwik">acquisition Yahoo announced this week</a>, is <a href="http://valleywag.gawker.com/newly-minted-millionaires-party-while-being-sued-657474677">getting sued</a> by Chaotic Moon, an Austin, Texas-based app-design studio, which claims it hasn't been paid for work it did developing Qwiki's iPhone app, which assembles pictures and videos together into short movies. (That's a very different idea than the one Qwiki launched with, <a href="http://readwrite.com/2010/10/22/qwiki_brings_text_to_life_with_images_audio">an iPad app which read Wikipedia entries aloud while displaying related imagery</a>.)</p><blockquote tml-render-position="right" tml-render-size="medium"><p><strong>(See also: <a href="http://readwrite.com/2013/07/02/yahoo-acquires-qwiki">Yahoo Picks Up Qwiki For A Rumored $50M</a> and <a href="http://readwrite.com/2011/04/20/move_over_flipboard_qwiki_is_the_ipads_newest_kill">Move Over, Flipboard: Qwiki Is The iPad's Newest Killer App</a>)</strong></p></blockquote><p>In its filing, Chaotic Moon said it's owed $168,000.&nbsp;In its response, Qwiki said it fired Chaotic Moon and had to hire another, unnamed firm, to finish the app. Qwiki is asking for $250,000 in damages.</p><p>Chaotic Moon CEO Ben Lamm acknowledged the lawsuit and told ReadWrite that his firm "did design and develop a late iteration of the Qwiki product."</p><p>It's up to a court to decide who's right in the case. But whoever prevails, one thing is clear: Qwiki did not actually build the app for which it gained enough notoriety to land itself at Yahoo.</p><h2>Talent, Or Show?</h2><p>In <a href="http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/call-transcript.aspx?StoryId=1346051&amp;Title=yahoo-s-ceo-discusses-q1-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript">discussing past acquisitions</a>, CEO Marissa Mayer has said that her goal is to "bring … engineering and technical talent" to "accelerate our efforts in mobile development."</p><p>It's a good strategy. Is Yahoo actually doing what Mayer says it is, though?</p><p>The Qwiki episode reminds us of another splashy acquisition: Summly, which Yahoo paid a reported $30 million for early this year. Summly, it turned out, did not actually develop <a href="http://readwrite.com/2013/04/22/yahoos-new-ios-app-integrates-summly">its core artificial-intelligence technology for news summaries</a>; that came from SRI, the research organization that also spun off Siri, the voice-recognition startup Apple bought in 2010.</p><p>Plenty of startups hire contractors or license intellectual property. There's no inherent shame in it.</p><p>But the logic of a "talent acquisition," as Mayer characterized several of Yahoo's recent purchases, is that you're not buying the code as much as you're hiring the coders. And so if the people who created a compelling user interface or a brilliant algorithm aren't part of the package, it's questionable what the startup's worth.</p><p>We asked several Yahoo spokespeople for comment on the matter and haven't heard back.</p><p><strong>Update:&nbsp;</strong>A Yahoo spokesperson pointed us to Yahoo's <a href="http://yahoo.tumblr.com/post/54451173706/qwiki-qwiki-yahoo">announcement of the acquisition</a>. It cites Qwiki's "awesome technology" and notes that the team is joining Yahoo.</p>A lawsuit reveals Qwiki did not build its own iPhone app. So what did Yahoo pay for, exactly?http://readwrite.com/2013/07/03/yahoo-qwiki-lawsuit-chaotic-moon
http://readwrite.com/2013/07/03/yahoo-qwiki-lawsuit-chaotic-moonMobileWed, 03 Jul 2013 12:38:00 -0700Owen ThomasDeath By Lawsuit: SCO Resurrects And Insanity Is Restored<!-- tml-version="2" --><p></p><div tml-image="ci01b2829ed0016d19" tml-render-position="right" tml-render-size="medium"><figure><img src="http://a5.files.readwrite.com/image/upload/c_fill,cs_srgb,dpr_1.0,q_80,w_620/MTIyMzAzNzU3MTU2Mzg1Mzgy.jpg" /></figure></div><p>If ever we needed confirmation that markets, not courtrooms, should decide the technologies we use, witness <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2013061516065416">SCO Group's reborn dream</a> to sue all of UNIX-dom into its wallet. It was a specious lawsuit in 2003 when SCO Group (now Xinuos) first launched its <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_v._IBM">$1 billion broadside against IBM</a>. It's even more farcical today. Sadly, it's not clear that the legal fights between Apple and Samsung, or Oracle and Google, are much better.</p><p>First, to SCO Group.</p><h2>SCO Is Like A Cockroach</h2><p>You can be forgiven for thinking bankruptcy, unsympathetic judges and the truth would have killed SCO's chances of getting its $1 billion IBM payday. That is, you can be forgiven for thinking that occasionally common sense prevails in the courtroom. But as <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2013061516065416">Groklaw notes</a>, a judge has just granted SCO Group (Xinuos) a new lease on its litigious life. Basically, Xinuos wants a "redo," suggesting that its bankruptcy proceedings unfairly foreclosed its ability to troll.</p><p>And let's be clear: this is all about trolling.</p><p>It's perhaps fitting that the company that acquired SCO Group's assets, Xinuos, <a href="http://www.xinuos.com/index.php/header-company/management-team">lists four members of management</a>, three of whom are operations and sales-focused (read: keeping costs down while they swing for the litigation fences), and only one is an engineer. That engineer is too embarrassed to show his face:</p><p></p><div tml-image="ci01b2829f60028266"><figure><img src="http://a3.files.readwrite.com/image/upload/c_fill,cs_srgb,w_620/MTIyMzAzNzU5MzAzODY5MDMw.png" /></figure></div><p>This is a company set up to sue. In common parlance, it is a troll. Fittingly, it's headquartered in Las Vegas, where the culture of rolling the dice on speculative "investments" pervades.</p><p>SCO Group reborn as UnXis renamed to Xinuos should be dead. The lawsuit that tormented the industry for years should have been declared stillborn when first launched. And yet we continue to live with this silly charade.</p><h2>More Respectable Lawsuits</h2><p>Not that industry litigation between respectable companies fares much better.&nbsp;</p><p>Samsung just <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-04/apple-faces-u-s-import-ban-on-some-devices-after-samsung-win.html">got a ban</a> on Apple's importation of old iPhones. Previous to this, Apple won $1 billion from Samsung plus an injunction against Samsung shipping certain phones. The injunction was subsequently wiped out and the damages were trimmed 43%.</p><p>It's a tit-for-tat with no end (or victor) in sight.</p><p>The same holds true for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_v._Google">Oracle's lawsuit against Google</a> over the use of Java in Android. The two parties trade victories and defeats, then appeal, and cross-appeal <em>ad nauseum</em>. The only winners in this and other lawsuits are the attorneys collecting fees.</p><h2>The Market Rolls On</h2><p>Despite all of this nonsense, consumers and businesses continue to make purchasing decisions based on quality and value, not lawsuits. Linux has eclipsed UNIX and threatens Windows. Android dominates the mobile landscape. Not one of these inane lawsuits has changed these facts.</p><p>So why do credible firms like Apple and Oracle follow the lead of trolls like SCO Group?</p><p>Perhaps they hope to delay the inevitable. If Apple can slow Samsung's market share gains, it stands to make even more profits.&nbsp;</p><p>Or perhaps they hope to get paid for others' successes. Microsoft makes serious money on Android, despite not contributing anything of value to its development. Oracle may hope to achieve the same in its lawsuit with Google, but part of its strategy may simply be to ensure that others continue to license Java, even if Google refuses, as <a href="http://gigaom.com/2010/10/05/android-swimming-with-the-patent-sharks/">I've written before</a>.</p><p>In some cases, technology firms sue in order <a href="http://www.law.com/corporatecounsel/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202582317738&amp;Do_Companies_Sue_Competitors_to_Learn_the_Competitors_Trade_Secrets&amp;slreturn=20130517111243">to discover competitors' trade secrets</a> in the course of the litigation.</p><p>Or maybe, just maybe, they're all suing, <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5833423/why-are-all-the-cellphone-companies-suing-each-other">as&nbsp;<em>Gizmodo</em> opines</a>, because the patent system is irretrievably broken and so much money is at stake in these emerging markets like mobile.&nbsp;</p><p>In the case of Xinuos, however, there's just one reason for its cockroach-like existence: to roll the dice one more time in the hope of getting something for nothing. Let's hope it fails in a way that it finally, truly dies.</p><p></p><p><em>Image courtesy of <a href="http://www.shutterstock.com">Shutterstock</a>.</em></p>SCO, the ultimate patent troll, has come back to life, but is it any worse than other patent lawsuits?http://readwrite.com/2013/06/17/death-by-lawsuit-sco-resurrects-and-insanity-is-restored
http://readwrite.com/2013/06/17/death-by-lawsuit-sco-resurrects-and-insanity-is-restoredWorkMon, 17 Jun 2013 08:53:00 -0700Matt AsayDead Dutch Programmer Sues Facebook For Patent Violations<!-- tml-version="2" --><div tml-image="ci01b281ddf0016d19" tml-render-position="center" tml-render-size="large"><figure><img src="http://a3.files.readwrite.com/image/upload/c_fill,cs_srgb,dpr_1.0,q_80,w_620/MTIyMzAyOTI4NDk2MjU4MzI5.jpg" /></figure></div><p>Facebook is no stranger to being sued, but a new lawsuit filed against the company this month might be <a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fish--richardson-files-patent-infringement-lawsuit-for-rembrandt-social-media-in-virginia-against-facebook-add-this-inc-189859931.html">the weirdest to date</a>.&nbsp;</p><p>As of February 5, Facebook is being sued by deceased Dutch programmer and apparent social web pioneer Joannes Jozef Everardus Van Der Meer, who passed away in 2004 - the year of Facebook's founding.&nbsp;The late Van Der Meer's justice will be sought by Rembrandt Social Media, the company that now owns his patents, and the law firm of Fish &amp; Richardson.</p><h2>Thomas Edison's Legal Team v. Facebook</h2><p>The lawsuit, filed in the state of Virginia's federal court, alleges that Facebook infringed upon two of Van Der Meer's patents. The first, U.S. Patent <a href="http://www.google.com/patents/US6415316">No. 6,415,316</a>, introduced a "Method and apparatus for implementing a web page diary," which the suit will contend was a precursor to Timeline. The second,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.google.com/patents/US6289362?printsec=description&amp;dq=U.S.+Patent+No.+6,289,362&amp;ei=aQIZUd2oMIXD0QHl_YHwDA#v=onepage&amp;q=U.S.%20Patent%20No.%206%2C289%2C362&amp;f=false">U.S. Patent No. 6,289,362</a>,&nbsp;outlined a&nbsp;"System and method for generating, transferring and using an annotated universal address," and has the Like button in its sights. The patents were filed in 1998 and issued to Van Der Meer in 2002 and 2001, respectively. So both pre-date the 2004 launch of Facebook.&nbsp;Social bookmarking company<a href="http://www.addthis.com/"> Add This</a> is also being sued for violation of the second patent.</p><p>While it's hard to imagine that such a strange case will have much ground to stand on, Fish &amp; Richardson has deep roots in intellectual property, counting Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers among its early clients. Facebook's legal team hasn't been around since 1878, but isn't exactly new to this sort of thing. (And hey,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.facebook.com/careers/teams/legal">it's hiring</a>&nbsp;-&nbsp;this might be a long one, after all.)&nbsp;</p><p>Patent-holder Rembrandt claims that the patents "represent an important foundation of social media as we know it" and is seeking royalties on this so-called foundational knowledge until 2021.</p><h2>Um, Surfbook?</h2><p>According to <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/before-facebook-there-was-surfbook-now-pay-up/">Ars Technica</a>, it gets even weirder. Around the time he filed the patents, Van Der Meer also owned www.surfbook.com, though what he intended to do with the domain is a mystery. According to a <a href="http://whois.net/whois/surfbook.com">Whois search</a>, surfbook.com is now owned by brand protection group MarkMonitor.&nbsp;</p><p>The IP claim on "web page diaries" would seem to have some big implications for pretty much the whole internet. Besides, some of us were already avidly documenting what we had for lunch on sites like Open Diary and LiveJournal in the internet dark age of 1999, back when Timeline was only a twinkle in Zuckerberg's eye.&nbsp;</p><p><em>Image of Mark Zuckerberg by Taylor Hatmaker</em></p>A deceased Dutch social media visionary may have invented Facebook. Oh yeah, and the firm bringing the legal heat also represented the Wright Brothers. http://readwrite.com/2013/02/11/facebook-surfbook-dutch-patent
http://readwrite.com/2013/02/11/facebook-surfbook-dutch-patentSocialMon, 11 Feb 2013 14:57:00 -0800Taylor HatmakerHP Gets Feds To Investigate Autonomy Deal<!-- tml-version="2" --><div tml-image="ci01b2f95000048266" tml-render-position="center" tml-render-size="large"><figure><img src="http://a3.files.readwrite.com/image/upload/c_fill,cs_srgb,dpr_1.0,q_80,w_620/MTIyNDM0MjYwODExNDE2MTY2.jpg" /></figure></div><p>Hewlett-Packard has made if official. The Justice Department is indeed investigating HP's allegations that Autonomy execs tricked the troubled technology giant into paying way too much for the British software maker. In disclosing the probe in its <a href="http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/47217/000104746912011417/a2211959z10-k.htm">annual regulatory filing</a> with the Securities and Exchange Commission, HP has started the next chapter in its ongoing feud with Autonomy founder Mike Lynch - who denies duping HP.</p><h2>Probe Expected</h2><p>The probe was expected, given that HP announced last month it had proof that it had been conned in last year's $10.3 billion acquisition-turned-fiasco. At the time, HP said it had turned over the evidence to the Justice Department, the SEC and the U.K. Serious Fraud Office. "On November 21, 2012, representatives of the U.S. Department of Justice advised HP that they had opened an investigation relating to Autonomy," the company reported to the SEC Thursday.</p><p>HP claims Autonomy executives inflated the company's value by reporting some revenue prematurely or improperly. The alleged bogus reporting accounts for almost 60% &nbsp;of the $8.8 billion write down HP booked last month on the Autonomy deal.</p><p>Ex-Autonomy Chief Executive Lynch responded to the investigation Friday by continuing to deny any wrongdoing. On a website Lynch set up to counter HP's allegations, he reiterated his complaint that HP has yet to release any details of the alleged scam. "Simply put, these allegations are false, and in the absence of further detail we cannot understand what HP believes to be the basis for them," <a href="http://autonomyaccounts.org/response-to-hp-2012-annual-report-filing/">Lynch wrote.</a></p><h2>Details Still Hidden</h2><p>HP is still keeping the details of the allegations confidential among itself, prosecutors and regulators. Thursday's filing did not provide any new details. Nevertheless, Lynch is ready to tell his side of the story. "We will co-operate with any investigation and look forward to the opportunity to explain our position," he wrote.</p><p>Throughout the claims and counterclaims, HP stock continues to get hammered. From the beginning of 2012 to Thursday, the price has fallen 45%.</p><p>Officially, the Federal Bureau of Investigation won't discuss whether or not it is involved in the case. However, an unidentified source <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-21/fbi-said-to-be-looking-into-hp-s-allegations-on-autonomy.html">told Bloomberg</a> that the agency <em>is</em> assisting the SEC in its investigation.</p><p>While Autonomy execs are under the investigatory microscope, shareholders are blaming HP for the deal that ended up wasting billions of dollars. In the SEC filing, HP lists <a href="http://readwrite.com/2012/12/24/hps-autonomy-troubles-get-worse#feed=/search?keyword=hp">10 lawsuits</a>, including four class-action suits.</p><h2>Apotheker Still Blamed</h2><p><a href="http://readwrite.com/2011/09/08/the-five-worst-ceos-in-tech#feed=/search?keyword=leo%20apotheker">HP CEO Leo Apotheker,</a> who was fired in September 2011, led the Autonomy deal as part of a plan to get HP deeper into the high-margin enterprise software business, while reducing its dependence on selling low-margin PCs. Autonomy software searches, organizes and manages data within large companies.</p><p>Apotheker sealed the end of his short career with HP when he announced he was considering the sale of its PC business. Because he had no buyer, Apotheker's disclosure sent Wall Street analysts into a tizzy. To them, Apotheker appeared to lack a clear vision or roadmap for saving HP from its years of bad deals, management turmoil and strategic blunders.</p><p>Current HP CEO Meg Whitman was on the company's board when it signed off on the Autonomy deal. Nevertheless, she has distanced herself and other board members from the debacle by laying the blame on Apotheker and then mergers and acquisitions head Shane Robinson, who also left the company in 2011.</p><p>History aside, now that federal prosecutors are officially involved, the repetitive claims and counterclaims being tossed back and forth between HP and Lynch won't matter much. The companies, their customers and shareholders now have to hope for clarity in the courts, especially if charges are filed.</p><p><em>Image courtesy of&nbsp;<a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-118558p1.html?cr=00&amp;pl=edit-00">drserg</a> / <a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/?cr=00&amp;pl=edit-00">Shutterstock.</a></em></p>The Justice Department investigation opens the next chapter in the feud between HP and Autonomy founder Mike Lynch, who the PC maker claims duped it into paying billions for the British software maker.http://readwrite.com/2012/12/28/hp-convinces-feds-to-investigate-autonomy-deal
http://readwrite.com/2012/12/28/hp-convinces-feds-to-investigate-autonomy-dealWorkFri, 28 Dec 2012 13:41:00 -0800Antone Gonsalves